Apache-Talk @lexa.ru 

Inet-Admins @info.east.ru 

Filmscanners @halftone.co.uk 

Security-alerts @yandex-team.ru 

nginx-ru @sysoev.ru 

   


   


   















      :: Filmscanners
Filmscanners mailing list archive (filmscanners@halftone.co.uk)

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: filmscanners: ReSize, ReSample or ReScan ?



Since in reality these are really very different operations, I fail to see
first how any comparison between the two is possible at all (apples and
oranges) and second what definition and criteria of "destructive" is being
used and with respect to what objective.

If one rescales without resampling, one changes the effective resolution, is
that destructive?  If one resamples without rescaling, one changes the
actual resolution, is that destructive?  If one resamples and rescales, one
has changed the actual resolution as well as the size of the image ( usually
proportionately) so as to result in the equivalent to what one started with
effectively, is that destructive?  Is downward resampling more destructive
than upward resampling or interpolation?

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-filmscanners@halftone.co.uk
[mailto:owner-filmscanners@halftone.co.uk]On Behalf Of Tony Sleep
Sent: Monday, September 24, 2001 1:46 AM
To: filmscanners@halftone.co.uk
Subject: Re: filmscanners: ReSize, ReSample or ReScan ?


On Fri, 7 Sep 2001 07:01:59 -0500  Gordon Potter (gordon-potter@home.com)
wrote:

>  I have been told resampling is much more destructive to an image
> then  resizing.

You were told wrong. Try it.

Regards

Tony Sleep
http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio & exhibit; + film scanner info
& comparisons




 




Copyright © Lexa Software, 1996-2009.